2024 (11) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in ITA no. 272/CTK/2019, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. He submits, the M.A. was an application for recalling order dated 12th August, 2024, disposing of the appeal ex-parte against his client. By the application sufficient cause was shown but the Tribunal arbitrarily dismissed the same. He submits, the Tribunal went into aspect of rectification and missed petitioner's contention of recall for purpose of restoration of the appeal. 2. He relies on view taken by coordinate Bench on judgment dated 18th March, 2020 in W.P.(C) no. 2487 of 2019 (Rabindra Kumar Mohanty v. The Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack. He points out, rule 24 in Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 stands reproduced in paragraph-5. The rule is reproduced below. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner. The writ petition is liable to and should be dismissed. Mr. Panda in reply reiterates, the Tribunal lost the thread in directing its mind toward rectification. Petitioner had invoked rule 24 and had shown sufficient cause. His client seeking opportunity to prosecute the appeal is before the writ Court. 4. We have seen the application made by petitioner. It says it was made under section 254 (2) in Income Tax Act, 1961. The sub-section deals with rectification. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be faulted for referring to aspect of rectification in impugned order. 5. Notwithstanding aforesaid, in impugned order the Tribunal also gave reason on not being satisfied with the cause shown for not appearing on the date fixed for hearing....